| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Stats Collector |
| Date: | 2002-07-30 20:21:24 |
| Message-ID: | 18597.1028060484@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> A function seems like the wrong way to go on this. SET has super-user
> protections we could use to control this but I am not sure what SET
> syntax to use.
I don't like SET for it --- SET is for setting state that will persist
over some period of time, not for taking one-shot actions. We could
perhaps use a function that checks that it's been called by the
superuser.
However, the real question is what is the use-case for this feature
anyway. Why should people want to reset the stats while the system
is running? If we had a clear example then it might be more apparent
what restrictions to place on it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-30 20:34:28 | Re: [GENERAL] Have been accepted as a writer for "The Register" |
| Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2002-07-30 20:21:23 | Have been accepted as a writer for "The Register" |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2002-07-30 20:43:08 | Re: [GENERAL] Stats Collector |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-30 20:20:08 | Re: WAL file location |